Meanwhile, a few chapters later in the same book:
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
TBH I can’t blame Christians for being confused about what love looks like if this is what they believe God says.
EDIT: Upon further reflection, I regret the way thus comment targets believers more than it does the problem in question. See: https://lemmy.world/comment/12608950
“yOu CaNt ApPlY mOdErN mOrAlItY tO ThE bIbLe!”
Then stop using it as the basis for your modern faith.
“ YoU CAN’t kNow Gods True nAtuRe”
Proceeds to give you prescriptive moral guidance as if they know gods true nature.
TBF you could pick the passages that do good and right for your fellow people and not the ones that are terrible. They ignore stuff they disagree with or find inconvenient all the time. So it’s a choice that says a lot about them for them to ignore the line to treat the asylum seeker or migrant well, but choose to obey some interpretation that does others harm.
The Mosaic laws are really quite interesting. These verses can work in tandem with those in Leviticus 19. There later is the understanding of why we were given the Mosaic laws, just for Jesus to disagree with them a bit later, which is explained in Matthew 19:3-8. "
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."
Many of the things discussed in the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Bible, where the Mosaic laws lie), are just about how to live their day to day lives, and at the time they had many slaves, something that they wouldn’t be willing to change. Instead of this, God commands how to treat these slaves. The Old Testament is full of confusing stuff, but it certainly isn’t just from “the Jew section of the Bible” as suggested in another comment. It has value, but they must be understood through a specific lens, understanding the lives of the people God is talking to.
Thanks for the comment. If I may quibble:
and at the time they had many slaves[…]
If memory serves, the Mosaic laws are said to be delivered to the Jews 90 days into their wandering in the desert after crossing the Red Sea. Which means that the people who received these rules about slavery were all recently freed former slaves. Unless they immediately started re-enslaving each other while wandering the desert with manna raining from heaven and water springing up from the rocks, I would think that none of them owned slaves.
[…]something that they wouldn’t be willing to change. Instead of this, God commands how to treat these slaves.
That line of reasoning has never sat right with me.
God doesn’t want people to kill. He knows people will do it anyway. He doesn’t say “Make it quick and painless when you kill someone.” He says “Thou shalt not kill.”
God doesn’t want people to steal. He knows people will do it anyway. He doesn’t say “Only steal from people who are well off and can afford to lose some possessions.” He says “Thou shalt not steal.”
I cannot imagine the guy who tells people to cut some skin off the end of their penis has any problem with making big asks of people.
EDIT: Upon further reflection, I regret the way thus comment targets believers more than it does the problem in question. See: https://lemmy.world/comment/12608950
There is no archeological evidence of Israelites residing in Egypt at the time of Moses nor of their enslavement there.
It is widely agreed that the tribes of Israel decended from Canaanites and other locals.
I wish modern christians would revise the bible. It’s not like they haven’t done it before.
There’s no time of Moses. Moses is a mythical character (a lot of Christian like myself has no problems with the findings of archeology).
I can’t speak with confidence on the existence of Moses or a figure that was the basis of the legend.
By the “time of Moses” I mean around 1300BCE.
It’s hard to prove a man didn’t exist. It’s easy to state there is no evidence of Exodus as biblically described.
Modern Christians did revise the Bible (Mormons) and made it more wacky.
I don’t have much to add to the great discussion your having, but as a sort of side point,”Thou shall not kill” is such a vague and poorly phrased commandment, at least if that’s the best translation. everyone seems to take it as “Dont murder people for most reasons” which is really quite different. the only way to stop killing anything actively is to be dead and that’s not even an option if you can’t kill. sorry I’m on phone so this is poorly and curtly typed, but all meaning to say that there has to be a lot lost with the really poor communication going on and not just by me. as I said earlier maybe it was better in the original language though.
Thou shall not kill” is such a vague and poorly phrased commandment
In modern English, yes. A few thousand years ago in Hebrew, the actions of hunting animals for food were probably not easily confused with murdering other humans.
Thank you for the quibble. I’m not the most informed on all these topics, and still growing in my faith and knowledge. The reason why I’ll always argue for God despite not having all the answers is because I’ve had a personal experience with him, and as such will always strive to find an answer the aligns with God’s existence, the same God as that in the Bible.
Sure! And to be clear, my goal is definitely not to just challenge your faith. The most devout Christian I know IRL is also one of my closest friends.
The reason I feel compelled to jump on biblical slavery apologetics is the impact I worry it can have on people’s views and actions in the present day. Slavery still exists, and I fear that arguments defending the slavery that existed under Mosaic law are eerily applicable to modern day trafficking in persons. That it wasn’t as bad as the trans-Atlantic slave trade, that it was just indentured servitude, or implicitly that slavery is less reprehensible than murder or theft or lying.
All this being said, I do think the tone of my initial comment and first reply to you was unduly harsh. It comes across more as making fun of Christians than anything else, and that’s not cool. I apologize for that, and I’ll edit those two linking to this comment to reflect that.
I find the point you mentioned about slavery being less reprehensible than murder or theft or lying quite interesting, since my understanding of the Bible is that all sin is weighed the same, being that the wages of sin is death. Not entirely sure how the slavery that existed under Mosaic law quite worked, but I don’t think it could be justified in any way. Don’t worry about your previous comments, I certainly didn’t take them that way! Glad to have a respectful back and forth on a topic like this.
I think most people assume the old testament is just stories like the new testament, but its full of legal technical stuff and obscure stuff like you quoted.
I think its chapter 2 or 3 that goes over how many animals you need to give to the church for what type of sin is committed. Like a list of fines.
Yeah, let’s believe in what that guy says./s What a dumb book.
33 That night the two girls got their father drunk, and the older daughter went and had sexual relations with him. But Lot did not know when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I had sexual relations with my father. Let’s get him drunk again tonight so you can go and have sexual relations with him, too. In this way we can use our father to have children to continue our family.”
35 So that night they got their father drunk again, and the younger daughter went and had sexual relations with him. Again, Lot did not know when she lay down or when she got up.
When old testament says to love someone instead of just smiting people, you know that shit is serious.
When I was young growing up Southern Baptist there was one time where the pastor preached about this verse, and the whiplash I felt when I heard family members bad-mouthing immigrants the moment they stepped outside is partly what led me to read the Bible myself, which led to me losing my faith.
Hello fellow former southern Baptist.
I hate to admit it took me way too long to realize the blatant hypocrisy.
Glad you made it out.
did you ditch the family too? sounds like the Bible was actually ahead on this one so itsweird you dump the faith instead (not overall, just the way you told the story had a whiplash of its own)
I suppose I excluded some important detail. The reason I had wanted to read the Bible then was so I could better understand God’s word and confront my family with that understanding. But reading the Bible didn’t clarify things for me the way I thought it would, instead of clear instruction on right and wrong I found more hypocrisy and contradiction, as well as a disturbing focus on the appropriate conduct of slave-owners and the treatment of women as property.
Reading the Bible gave me the same whiplash I felt seeing the hypocrisy of the people around me, which made me realize that it wasn’t in spite of their faith, but because of it.
They probably just lost their faith in the society around them.
And started reading Bible with understanding instead of faithJust because you disowned your family doesn’t mean you have to project your misery in everyone else.
The people I know that have cut out parts of their family are happier for it, not miserable.
Yeah, this is a hard decision that isn’t usually taken on a whim ^^`
Personally I only speak with one of my sisters and a cousin.
Sort of like cutting off an infected limb. You are happy to be alive but still would rather have the arm.
Its still a sad thing even if it improves their life.
“That’s from the Jew section of the Bible.”
There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galations 3:28
damn it just keeps coming up! Its like this whole bible thing was really trying to get this whole ‘dont be a dickhead’ point home, shame its not working so well
I disagree with the statement mentioned in the original comment, but this isn’t a proper argument against it. In that verse, they’re discussing who Jesus came for. Instead, you can look at Matthew 5, in the sermon on the mount, which says that Christ did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. As such, the laws cannot be disregarded.
So then animal sacrifice is meant to be continued by Christians? The “did not come to abolish but fulfill” thing is really an explanation for abolishment. He didn’t destroy the law but completed it, so it’s done. And by law we basically mean Leviticus. So yes, Leviticus pretty much is irrelevant. By your argument and the argument embedded in OPs post Christians should still be stoning women and not eating pork.
How can you know which chapter of Matthew starts the sermon on the mount and not know pretty much the most core concept in Christian theology? Like that is almost the whole central point of Jesus is that he abolished the law by fulfilling it. That and salvation. That’s like the two things.
Firstly, animal sacrifice had a purpose, and that purpose was replaced by the ultimate sacrifice, Jesus Christ. With the pork topic, I’m not entirely educated, but I know it’s a debated topic.
To the actual meat of this, how could you take “Jesus didn’t abolish but fulfill the law”, then say that Jesus abolished the law by fulfilling it? I’ve been studying this across Romans 6, 7, 8; and also the entire book of Galatians both discuss the law in full. As I’m studying, I’ve also been writing an essay on the topic. I’ll share when I finish it. Until then, here’s a mini summary. Regardless, we can at least agree that Jesus didn’t contradict himself (assuming you’re coming from a Christian background).
The law (Mosaic laws, Moses’s laws) was created for a few purposes: firstly, to prevent us from sinning aka doing the things that distance us from God; Second, many of the laws were created for the cleanliness and safety of the people, although most of these things are considered common sense today. We’re gonna focus on the former, being closer to God.
Jesus commands that the greatest 2 commandments are to love God, and love others. In loving Jesus, you don’t want to sin, and avoid it as second nature. It’s 2 opposing forces, desires of the flesh vs your love of Christ, as the latter increases the latter will naturally decrease. In doing so, Jesus has fulfilled the purpose of the law, but still hasn’t abolished it. I could add verses if you’d like, but I’d have to double check where they are. The laws have still not been abolished though, since how are we to know what is sin unless the law shows us. Although, we still have the Spirit of discernment which allows us to differentiate the original purpose of the law, the intention of the heart, and allows us to widen our scope and know whether certain things are sin or not regardless of if they’re explicitly mentioned in the Bible. This same spirit allows us to determine whether something is just against the Mosaic law for health/cleanliness reasons (some people will claim pork is under this category, but as I said I’m not entirely sure), for avoiding Pagan traditions (like the mention of tattoos), or whether it’s truly distancing us from God.
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
You didn’t actually address the contradiction, you danced around it. Try to truly reconcile it.
That same section they always quote to hate on gay people
They find the gospel even more confusing with all that radical love shit
Of course then why doesn’t Israel do this?
Half them can’t read, so they don’t know it exists.
The other half find their inability to read useful and don’t bother explaining so they can keep being assholes.
Simply put the old testament is the pick and choose portion of the bible. Only slightly more complex is their ability to ignore similar sentiment in the new testament.
Yeah, the sequel retconned a bunch, but is actually more “love your neighbor” and way less violent than the original.
But the it has that weird Paul tangent that’s just a collection of letters from a former Christian-hunter that changed sides where he gets really judgy about other Christians and he starts telling them how to act.
Started the process that made the only female apostle a whore. Only recently has that bit of self serving propaganda been debunked.
Edit: Found this. It isn’t the same article I read several years ago but it examines the text of the gospels and even paul couldn’t deny she was the first to spot jesus when he came out of his coma. https://uscatholic.org/articles/201603/who-framed-mary-magdalene/
The artwork is giving off serious Asterix and Obeid vibes; do you know where it’s from?
Man you are not going to believe this… Asterix and Obelix
For real? Damn, talk about an iconic art style! Do you happen to know which story this is from?
I think it was from Asterix and the Secret Weapon, but I lost this book so I can’t check ^^.
Nah, “Asterix and Caesar’s Gift”. 🙂
Man you are not going to believe this … it’s from Asterix in Ohio.
You’re right…
It’s from “Asterix and Caesar’s Gift ” by René Goscinny and Albert Uderzo.
But they hate themselves so maybe it’s consistent in a weird way.
🤔
this doesn’t hurt anyone, why would I pick this verse
Old Testament is too easy for them to ignore
Ok, how about from the New Testament: "Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.” - Mark 12:31
Matthew 25:31-46 is one of the few places in the Bible where Jesus specifically says something will send you to hell, but avoiding that involves treating homeless people and immigrants like people so I guess they’d rather go to hell. They get REALLY mad if you point this out, because they’re more into weekly vibes-based meetings with people in their social class than following the teachings of the religion.
Full verses
Matthew 25:31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,f you did it to me.’
41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’45Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Bible: “Love your neighbor”
Christian: Loves everyone in their wealthy gated neighborhood. Hates everyone else.
“Yes all your neighbors; I didn’t effing stutter, did I?!!” —Jesus, probably
Any of it is. They’ve always cherry-picked.
Unless it reinforces their reactionary beliefs.
Unironically, one of the core beliefs of Christianity is that Jesus Christ dying was the creation of a new covenant with man.
They’re more of the ‘conquest and smashing babies against the rocks’ kind of old testament.
Or Matthew 25:40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
But then they’d also have to abide to the ones about not judging other people since only God can do that…
Yes, but God told them so it’s okay.
Ah, I forgot I was being silly. Sorry about that.
Because their religion isn’t christ, it’s racism
“Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.”
James 5:1-6
If these “christians” could read, they’ll be really upset.
